Menu

The Pareto Principle

An interesting side discussion was started in what proved to be a very popular post thread for The War Brides of Europe, and rather than let it disappear beneath a thousand-plus comments I thought I’d pick up on an old post I’ve had in my drafts for a while now.

One of the foundational ideas of Red Pill awareness from the earliest PUA years has been the 80/20 concept – 80% of women want to have sex and / or pair off with the top 20% of men. This has been a fast and loosely defined in terms of subjective sexual market value (SMV) between men and women and the ratio of disparity between those valuations.

In intersexual terms, this 80/20 rule finds its roots in the economic theory known as the Pareto Principle: “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” While I’m not sure the principle is directly translatable, it mirror the general rule of Hypergamy and women’s innate drive to optimize their sexual strategy with who they perceive as the top tier 20% (Alphas) men are fucking the 80% lion’s share of women. Many a despondent Beta picks up on the principle and uses this to justify his failures to connect with women.

I’m of the opinion that the 80/20 rule is often abused to justify men’s failures or successes with women (more often failure), however the fundamental notion is both observable and easily verifiable in-field as well as statistically. It is however important to keep in mind that the 80/20 rule as it applies to Hypergamy is often bastardized in its inverse. The presumption goes that if 80% of women want to have sex with the top 20% of men it should necessarily mean that the top 20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Many a despondent Beta picking up on this dynamic will use this assumption to disqualify himself from Game or give up in futility. More on this later.

As a point of reference, it’s important to remember that Hypergamy doesn’t seek its own level with regard to SMV comparisons. Rather, Hypergamy is always seeking a socio-sexual pairing that is a ‘better than’ exchange for a woman’s own, realistically comparative, SMV. And as I’ve mentioned previously, Hypergamy is always pragmatic about establishing that ‘better than’ SMV exchange with men’s.

While the Red Pill’s expanded definition of Hypergamy encompasses far more than just ‘marrying up‘, the 80/20 sexual selection process is simple enough that even Aunt Giggles in her heyday could illustrate it:

As you might guess the fundaments of basic Hypergamy are easy to understand, so the tendency is to oversimplify the complexities that really define Hypergamy and how the 80/20 basics play out. And lastly, it’s important to bear in mind the dual nature of women’s Hypergamous filtering, impulses and attendant emotional investments – the 80/20 dynamic applies to both the Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks aspects of Hypergamy, however the characteristics that would optimize the former tend to come at the expense of the latter (and vice versa).

All that said, the 80/20 principle is fairly simple; a majority of women across the broadest SMV spectrum (80%) will always want for a ‘better than’ pairing (both sexual and provisional) than their own comparative SMV.

If the underlying mechanics of Hypergamy-inspired desire were only about a 1 or 2 step difference in SMV the distribution ratio wouldn’t be 80/20. As sophomoric as it is the above graph is relatively accurate: an SMV 3 woman is desirous of an SMV 8 or above man as representative of a Hypergamously optimal pairing (sex and/or provisioning).

For the 80/20 rule to hold true we’re looking at a comparative difference of 5 steps in SMV. Now, granted, this is on the extreme end of the spectrum, and it should also be noted that SMV is also a question of context and based on a woman’s ‘filtering’ perception of a man’s SMV being legitimate. However, this doesn’t alter the ‘better than’ merited pragmatism of Hypergamy.

Whether or not a woman is actually capable of this optimization isn’t relative to understanding the principle. Indeed, with the expansion of instant communication, social emphasis of women’s empowerment and esteem, and the influence social media exercises over the female ego, an SMV 3 woman of today might likely believe she is in fact deserving of a man 5 steps above her own (a good example). But for purposes of understanding how the Pareto principle applies to intersexual dynamics we must focus on the latent purposes for it to exist.

Common Errors

The easiest (or most convenient) mistake to make about this dynamic is to presume that the consolidation of Hypergamy (locking down a man 5 to 1 steps higher in SMV in monogamy) defines the 80/20 rule. Remember, this principle is about desire and women’s expected (entitled?) satisfaction of it, not the actual consolidation (LTR) of that Hypergamous ideal.

In the prior thread the conversation centered on the mistaken idea that the Pareto Principle is not universal or is only observed in some systems, but not in human sexuality. To which I’d argue that in no other system is this principle more evident than intersexual dynamics – and not just among humans but countless other species. It’s unflattering to the disguise in which the Feminine Imperative would put it in, but, whether realizable or not, the 80/20 rule practically defines female desire.

The second mistake it to presume the inverse: that 20% of men actually get 80% of women. Usually this gets trotted out as an equal-for-equal argument that presumes, again, that desire should necessarily translate into consolidation. Betas and lower SMV men do get laid and pair off with women for any number of reasons, but the principle isn’t about who’s actually fucking who. Rather, it’s about who has more access to sexually available women based on their SMV valuation. Nice Guys may finish last, but they do finish eventually – whether they finish ‘well’ is a thought for another post.

A third common mistake, made mostly by women, presumes the goal-state outcome of intersexual dynamics should be to arrive at a monogamous state. This is the consolidation of a female sexual strategy, and because we live in a feminine-primary social order, that committed, monogamous end to women’s sexual strategy is perceived as the socially “correct” goal. At no point is men’s imperative interests (sexual or life-rewarding) a priority, if it’s considered at all, in the Hypergamous equation. In the absence (or disregard) of men’s conflicting interests the Feminine Imperative substitutes what best fits its own interests as the socially ‘appropriate’ goals for men. Then it qualifies ‘manhood’ according to its proxy interests for men, so that any man not measuring up to them are not considered truly ‘men’ by its definition.

Women’s innate Hypergamous nature ensures a distributive model for desire that aligns with the Pareto Principle – even if the overall result of women settling for less than optimal Hypergamy appears to contradict it. Again, it’s important to remember that women’s Hypergamous desires are often not reflected by the outcome of those desires.

Want is not have

The concept that a woman’s Hypergamous imperative wouldn’t be a mutual goal between the sexes is an alien thought to most women. Much in the same way that men idealistically want to believe women mutually share their concept of love for love’s sake (and free from the conditions of their Burden of Performance), women are mistaken in believing men’s sexual strategy is synonymous with the female strategy and shares a mutual end. By way of feminine solipsism and a social order that only considers women’s imperatives as legitimate, collective feminine social consciousness rarely gives men’s imperatives an afterthought – and then only when they become problematic to the Feminine Imperative.

Women subconsciously reinforce the feminine-correct goal state of LTR monogamy by a continuous, autonomous, expectation of its fulfillment – even when that fulfillment creates cognitive dissonance with their short term vs. long term sexual strategy. It’s part of women’s Hypergamous firmware to do so because it ensures (or tries to) their subconscious need for parental investment and long term security / provisioning.

What women necessarily must disregard is that their own sexual strategy choices are determined by the want to pair with a mate who exceeds her own SMV. Thus, the Pareto principle applies.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable. The degree of comfort with which women have in revealing the machinations of Hypergamy is proportional to their capacity to play the 80/20 game well enough to consolidate on a 20th percentile man (or his closest approximation). For women still uncomfortable with openly embracing the uglier side of Hypergamy concealing the truth about the 80/20 becomes a practical priority. You will find in the future that many of the conflicts you read between Strong Independent Women® of differing social or moral perspectives will be based in their degree of comfort in openly relating the machinations of Hypergamy.

Women for whom keeping the 80/20 rule concealed from men’s popular consciousness (women with less capacity to compete intrasexually) can ill afford to have men aware of their own SMV and how it affects their long term sexual strategy. High value Red Pill aware men have the leisure to exploit Hypergamy and low value Red Pill men aware of their Hypergamous role risk denying women of the resources to provision them in the long term.

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

So, in other words, you’ll end up killing yourself anyway, but you’ll do it the slow way, by making sure you’ll end up an exhausted wretch with an ulcer, high blood pressure and similar health problems? Because that’s what you’re basically saying there.

I tend to think of how men confront the challenge of their performance burden is a parallel to their understanding of the 80/20 rule. On some level of consciousness men either possess some evolved instinct for it, or they develop some learned understanding of their own role in relation to how the 80/20 dynamic applies to them.

I think much of what frustrates men about assessing their own SMV in a Blue Pill mindset comes from an instinctual understanding of the 80/20 rule and reconciling it with what they’re being socialized to believe women ought to evaluate them for. Before any Game, before any Red Pill awareness, men’s first deductive impression is to classify themselves into SMV respective “leagues“, and women who would or wouldn’t be sexually accessible according to those leagues.

Ironically, even men’s Blue Pill league evaluations fail to account for women’s 1-5 SMV step over evaluation of their own SMV. The equalist agenda teaches men that their leagues should be based on a like-for-like parallel, when Hypergamy really demands men’s SMV be well above that of women.

This of course gets distorted once men begin to become Red Pill aware and over-exaggerate the abstract concept of Alpha and how it applies to themselves. In a way they fall victim to believing they must become an Alpha parody in order to measure up to women’s apex fallacy impression of a top 20% man.

Needless to say Red Pill awareness and applied Game will reveal the truth about the 80/20 rule. Initially it seems like a horribly unjust set of conditions for an ‘average’ man, but the rule is still based on the fundamental biological and psychological underpinnings of Hypergamy, and therefore open to exploits for a Red Pill aware man.

Quality Assurances

In the above example (h/t Young Patriarch) we can see the comparison between a naturalistic, Hypergamous socio-sexual order contrasted with an idealized socio-sexual structure. The Sexual Freedom model mirrors the 80/20 rule, while the Regulated model is representative of an idealized structure designed with the intent to evenly justify pairings according to a distributive monogamy.

As I mentioned earlier, men have an instinctual understanding about how the 80/20 Pareto Principle applies to women’s Hypergamy. And while Game is a modern contingency for it I would argue that the cross-culture concept of a monogamous marriage between men and women was a broader contingency designed not just to counter women’s Pareto-centered sexual strategy, but to ensure a greater majority of (lesser SMV) men had the opportunity to pass on their genetic heritage.

I could point out that the Regulated model above is very representative of an egalitarian model for monogamy based again on the like-for-like presumption, but Hypergamy being what it naturally is will always confound that ideal. However, I have to also point out that the Regulated ideal has always been a convenient selling tool to keep both men and women ignorant of the uglier, visceral nature of the Hypergamous sexual marketplace.

Marriage as a social adaptation serves (or served) as a negotiated buffer against Hypergamy, but it also serves as a perceived buffer against men’s Burden of Performance that would otherwise necessitate the constant super-achievement that Hollenhund describes above. As a social dynamic marriage was a Beta breeding insurance policy that conveniently enough took root about the time human beings began to adopt a largely agrarian lifestyle.

Today equalism and the fantasy of an idealized, mutually beneficial monogamy based on the Old Set of Books is little more than a contingent workaround for the 80/20 rule reality. As this idealism decays and is replaced by either Red Pill awareness or men learning the harsh realities of modern marriage liability the more we will see a shift away from the Regulated model in favor of a now openly Hypergamous model.

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women. Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

In the old order of monogamy the mutually beneficial exchange centered on quality assurances, either via polygamy (sexual assurances) or monogamy (provisonal assurances) in a Beta context. These assurances, having been more or less compensated for by men’s willing or unwilling assistance via social and legislative means, are no longer an incentive for women to marry or commit to a long term monogamy, and this is evidenced in almost a decade of statistics that show this decline.

A wife for every Beta is the old order negotiated social contract function of committed monogamy. In a state of nature where 80% of men can never be assured of a genetic legacy, most men have no incentive to participate in an organized society. What the Regulated model of sexuality does (albeit inefficiently) is gives Beta males the incentive to cooperate in larger society by establishing monogamy as the predominant social order. And then, as Krauser mentions these societies tend to outperform those based on a Hypergamous, naturalistic socio-sexual structure.

As mentioned this arrangement was based on an exchange of long term security for women for assurances of sexual access and ultimately a genetic legacy. Essentially it was a negotiated compromise of the desire for the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy for the assurances of a long term Beta Bucks aspect of Hypergamy. By today’s socio-sexual standard this old order arrangement is supplanted with the relatively assured guarantee of satisfying both aspects of Hypergamy at different phases of a woman’s maturity in life. Thus we see the Epiphany Phase, Alpha Widowhood and every variety of schema I outline in Preventive Medicine.

The new, post-sexual revolution order is a model ostensibly based on ‘sexual freedom’, but what this really represents is a return to that naturalistic sexual order based on pre-agrarian, evolutionarily incentivized Hypergamy. We revert back to an open acceptance of the 80/20 realities that, if we’re honest, always informed even a Regulated socio-sexual model of monogamy.

In the new era of Open Hypergamy, women’s only necessitated compromise of her sexual strategy depends on her exaggerated self-impression of her SMV measured against her capacity to lock down an optimal male. This also explains the endless push to create self-confident, self-important ‘independent’ women. Women’s naturalistic predilection for the 80/20 Pareto Principle of sexual selection virtually assures their long term isolation – thus the need for a self-created impression of women’s self-sufficiency.

– multiple women who turned 40 never having kids or getting married to a beta
– many betas getting married figuring out in just a few years that they have been duped and the deal is rotten
– multiple single guys in their thirties, enjoying life and no interest at all in marriage or LTRs

So… I’m gonna post more when i get home but.. first, do you guys think sexual freedom for women is a good thing or bad? I mean, if that’s true than alphas do a lot of the f**king, and if you can be a part of that 20%, then that’s good right???

While the Pareto principal holds true for simpler biological and economic situations, and may hold true for aspirational fantasising, I suspect human sexual behavior is more complicated in terms of results of actual matings that eventually occur.

The molecular genetics people have been looking at this issue, and an interesting paper was published showing that during a time of extreme change about 60% of women reproduce (as measured by passing on of conserved DNA) and about 40% of men.

You can get the article here (free pdf download is linked on the right)

This is the pattern seen during a period of extreme transition, when there is no social “monogamy contract” that has so affected male probability of reproducing in more recent centuries. The authors attribute it to a shift toward agriculture and division-of-labor-based society, but it is interesting to note that the time for this reproductive free-for-all coincides with the Younger Dryas cataclysm gelogists are starting to elucidate in their own journals (molecular geneticists need to talk to geologists more often- LOL)

Anyways, in my tradition of posting very politically incorrect videos, I’ll link to this riff off the 40% / 60% numbers:

TomThe molecular genetics people have been looking at this issue, and an interesting paper was published showing that during a time of extreme change about 60% of women reproduce (as measured by passing on of conserved DNA) and about 40% of men.

If I remember right, Roy Baumeister claimed some years ago that over time 80% of women and 40% of men in a given cohort reproduce, these are the people we are all descended from.

I believe this essay contains that claim, Is There Anything Good About Men.

The return to the pre agrarian sexual dynamics would appear to be a byproduct of feminism,as more unexpected than planned. And this return to an older order while it doesn’t fit well into a model of “peaceful civilization”,will most likely produce a larger # of confused betatized alphas.
Both the social and economic indications,coupled with the logistics for survival are exponentially negative.
Perhaps we will see a return to other pre agrarian methods of culture and survival as well.
While I don’t look forward to this prospective,I don’t particularly relish the current state of society either.
Time to tighten up or we will be seeing some new faces around here lol.

In Open Hypergamy I made mention that there is a social transitioning taking place among women where revealing the uglier side of Hypergamy is becoming more acceptable.

Would you say part of the reaction to Overt Hypergamy is women who reject being feminist? The backlash against feminism has really started in earnest the past year or two, with a lot of women now regarding the term with obvious disgust and distancing themselves from it. It has become synonymous with the absolute worst of female behavior and least appealing traits a woman can have. Is this part of an attempt to stuff the cat back in the bag by women who can’t seem to consolidate on what they want? Basically “Oh I’m not one of those bitches flaunting my hypergamy so pick me!”

Frankly I’m both insulted and disgusted when low value women (ie fat, old, and/or single mothers) try to hit on me. It’s incredibly insulting that these horrible beasts think that I would ever be interested in them. It makes me sick.

Fat co-worker keeps buying me comic books. I don’t even like comic books. She does. And she’s like 150 pounds and 5′ 2″. What the fuck does she think she’s doing hitting on me? Waiting for me after work and shit to beta woo me with gifts.

Or this thirty year old single mother who was the manager of the girl I was actually picking up at this pizza joint. Bragging about getting her master’s degree. I don’t give a fuck about your master’s degree this other girl is nineteen and thin. You’re a thirty year old single mother who thinks her master’s degree means anything to me at all. All it means is that you’ll overvalue yourself and be a bigger bitch than you already were. And still buying me shit. “Oh Snowden I’m going to get some energy drinks, what kind do you like?”. Whatever, leave so I can hit on the hot girl without you interrupting. And take your master’s degree with you.

And the old woman. So fucking desperate it just makes me sick. Forty five year old blonde with big tits. Probably fake. Blathering on about her skiing trip and how she used to own a motorcycle. Fuck women have no clue what men are attracted to anymore. So they just ape what they are attracted to. And when I go to leave the ancient bitch goes nuclear. Invites me over for the weekend, tells me she’s got wine and any movie I want and will buy me whatever food I want. And that her kids are with their dad for the weekend. Dumb old cow I had a date with a twenty one year old. Maybe you shouldn’t have divorce raped your husband if you didn’t want to die alone.

Equalism is fucking everyone up. Men and women. Women are utterly clueless about how to attract a mate and doing all the wrong things. They are an HB3 that wants an HG8. What you didn’t mention is that these HB3 low value women actually believe that they are HB7s because they have improved their male value. If only these bitches were men. Lol.

The other elision in that NY Mag Yay Single Girls article is that single women could be a most effective voting block for the issues they want. Only problem: they have to show up to vote. Most don’t. That could happen this year. And then they bitch after the elections about how Red their state’s gotten, legally speaking, how could that happen, must have been the Patriamalarkey.

For all the mockery we do of SJW’s, we acknowledge they can do damage, especially to academic culture. But in Meat World they will never be politically effective. They won’t vote, and they can’t organize, since to do so they would have to interact with people not as intersectionally correct as they are. If the recent protest at Rutgers of Milo’s speech is an indicator, they could never venture into the world outside of the Political Science and Gender Studies Safe Space lounge. They would get the vapors at their first exchange with an old union man who might call them “honey”, but who might come around to vote their way if they could only refrain from their SJW Default Shaming Scream and actually try to engage.

That’s how Occupy Wall Street fell apart: instead of the group organizing and doing shit, SJW’s insisted that “marginalized people get a voice” which meant a whole lot of victim-puke blather and no action. The true movers and shakers who got things to happen were purged or shamed away.

Frankly I’m both insulted and disgusted when low value women (ie fat, old, and/or single mothers) try to hit on me. It’s incredibly insulting that these horrible beasts think that I would ever be interested in them. It makes me sick.

You know the more I improve myself and aim to have a lot more positive thinking in my life, the less it’s disgust and the more it becomes gracious amusement. It’s the same way I regard gay guys that hit on me. Used to disgust me, but these days I realize it’s a sign I’m doing well; gay dudes hitting on me indicates that at least visually I’m doing well. It’s a matter of working on my Game to fire the rest of the cylinders for straight chicks. When unattractive women make their attraction to me overt, it’s an indication that I’m headed in the right direction Game-wise as well.

Yeah it’s frustrating that it’s not a ridiculously cute petite spinner throwing her panties at me, but it costs me nothing to graciously accept the compliment and reject the advance. Besides, who wants to sound like the male version of cunts that whine about cat calls was they walk down the street? Not I. I’d rather be the fun dude they mention to their (possibly) hotter friends.

Would you say part of the reaction to Overt Hypergamy is women who reject being feminist? The backlash against feminism has really started in earnest the past year or two, with a lot of women now regarding the term with obvious disgust and distancing themselves from it.

I think a lot of this popularized distancing from the label of ‘feminist’ is really a form of infighting between women whose world views don’t align.

One of the issues I’ve always had with Elam and AVfM was their glad-handing women who identify as ‘anti-feminist’ and thinking that means they are pro-MRM. They’re not, they just want a platform from which to fight women with whom they disagree.

I think we’ve come to a point since the sexual revolution where women are so used to feminist ideology that they don’t recognize it in themselves. They don’t identify as ‘feminist’, but their ego-investments, social expectations and understanding of men are all rooted in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. They get insulted by just being asked if they identify as a feminist because they don’t want to be associated with women like Big Red or the armpit hair dyers, but when you ask them about their personal ideologies it’s all liberal or conservative interpretations of the same feminism.

Even the most staunch anti-feminist is still beholden to Hypergamy. None of them want to rescind any of the power feminism has granted them and they take for granted in favor of trusting lesser men with their long term security.

I guess I’m still not over the anger about how completely delusional modern women have become. I mean if two of those three women realized that what men care about primarily is how fat they are they might stop stuffing candy into their pig faces and turn themselves into attractive women. And if that old one would have realized that at forty five she has no value to me at all her kids might have a father. Or maybe she’d realize she needs to be hitting on fifty five year old guys. Everyone would be happier.

Women are completely delusional. But yeah, no use complaining about it. Can’t fix it. So onto another one. Or two. Cheers.

You entire statement is “ought” vs. “is”. They’ll never change. You can though. How will you do so to take advantage of the circumstances? That’s all that matters. Focusing on what they ought to do (but never will) vs. what you can and will do will cause you a lot of frustration. Who needs that in their life, right?

Focus on the shit you can change in yourself. It’s a lot more rewarding and a much better use of your time and energy.

I figured it was only a matter of time before right wing-type special snowflakes started to get the vapors over hearing uncomfortable criticism of their heroes just like the leftie social justice worriers who invented uncomfortable speech bans do:

You’re more correct than you may think. Here are the low down dirty facts on human performance, from Steve Jobs comments to Business Insider’s thoughts on the concept (“There was consistently a sizable number of outliers, “elite performers” in each profession that accounted for the lion’s share of output while a majority of workers performed below the mathematical average.”) to the chart we commissioned. http://www.qwktax.com/pareto and/or here http://www.elliscpa.us/elite-performance/

So… I’m gonna post more when i get home but.. first, do you guys think sexual freedom for women is a good thing or bad?

Good, bad, doesn’t matter. What matters is who’s holding the gun. If you can’t figure out what I mean by that… exactly.

I mean, if that’s true than alphas do a lot of the f**king, and if you can be a part of that 20%, then that’s good right???

…Says someone who would never ever value themselves in the bottom 20% of attractiveness, ever. Even women who are legitimate zeros inflate their own value beyond this level (and society lets them get away with it). This is solipsism at it’s finest. You can’t conceive of actual sexual invisibility and what that does to a person, which is why you need to shut your mouth on this topic.

I mean, would you prefer that or a perfectly monogamous society?

That entire thread three posts ago, and you still don’t understand the dangers to humanity when you get large numbers of single men, with no access to sex in their lives, and lots of free time on their hands.

Be a good little girl and go sit in the corner, listen, and learn. But do the world a favor and shut up because you don’t understand shit about how the world works.

@Tom
Could it be that during times of extreme disruption in society there is a whole lot of rape and pillage going on? Emphasis on the raping, thus there are periodic burps in the whole show when its downright chaos and any guy who hasn’t been killed in battle or chaos gets a quick victory fuck with the captured tribe before things settle back down to some kind of “normal” for that general time period.

Per Emil-sluts comment / thought. Learned Charisma aside, I use body fat percentage as a very rough guide or proxy for SMV for men these days. Statistically all you have to do is get below something like 18% body fat and you are in the top 20% of middle aged men in North America these days. I know there are many other factors that play into it, dominance, character, some muscle etc, yada yada. my point being, I don’t think it’s terribly hard to actually land yourself in the top 20% of men, thus opening yourself up to a vast array of potential mates.

Might I suggest that even having an RP awareness gives you a free 10 SMV points just for probably keeping your foot out of your mouth much of the time.

Consider this an opening for a patented Ya Really wall of text on having good internals!

RolloOne of the issues I’ve always had with Elam and AVfM was their glad-handing women who identify as ‘anti-feminist’ and thinking that means they are pro-MRM.

Yeah, that pretty much demonstrates how blue-pill Elam is. He still believes what women say and is always surprised by what they do.

I think we’ve come to a point since the sexual revolution where PEOPLE are so used to feminist ideology that they don’t recognize it in themselves.

FIFY. We swim in a sea, or maybe a cesspool, of feminism.

They don’t identify as ‘feminist’, but their ego-investments, social expectations and understanding of men are all rooted in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism. They get insulted by just being asked if they identify as a feminist because they don’t want to be associated with women like Big Red or the armpit hair dyers, but when you ask them about their personal ideologies it’s all liberal or conservative interpretations of the same feminism.

Bingo.

Even the most staunch anti-feminist is still beholden to Hypergamy. None of them want to rescind any of the power feminism has granted them and they take for granted in favor of trusting lesser men with their long term security.

Try this: take any church going, Republican voting, home schooling momlady, and ask her to support abolishing Title IX, or Affirmative Action for women, or special Small Business Administration women-only loans, or special women-only scholarships in STEM, or any of the other special treatment of women that has been instiutionalized in the last 40 years.

Odds are she’ll be totally against. And these are the anti-feminists; you know they are because they publicly oppose abortion* and don’t like lesbians. Much.

*I have long wondered just how staunchly anti-abortion many, many fertile-years woman in churches would be if there were a serious chance to ban abortion. Because a whole lot of women always want that one, final, option to sweep the “wrong” genes away…

One thing for certain the yuuuge excess of resources isn’t a byproduct of feminism.

I find Camille Paglia to be equal parts of stupid and clever. Her clever side once said “”If civilization had been left in female hands like me, i.e. Camille Paglia, we would still be living in grass huts, …”

I think Hypergamy is awesome…its the reason we are all almost 6 ft tall and have the biggest brains in the animal kingdom. It’s because women selected the strongest and smartest and wiliest males. I love women…I love how they measure me as a man. If you ain’t fucking them, step your game up, lift weights, get charming and go get paid , earn that shit. I love Hypergamy and you should too because it pushed the human race to greater And greater heights. And men have Hypergamy too, we all want the hottest girl we can possibly get our hands on, so get the fuck off your high horse and be the man who can fuck the women he wants.

But yeah, I was merely asking you guys what you would prefer. Certainly you guys don’t seem too keen on lifelong monogamy. But that chart in the beginning of the post will be true if a) men are not monogamous, and b) women are completely promiscuous and don’t mind sharing a man.

“, and you still don’t understand the dangers to humanity when you get large numbers of single men, with no access to sex in their lives, and lots of free time on their hands.”

I do understand that, I think society should be monogamous. I’m gonna make a post about this thread later when I get home.

One difference between male and female hypergamy , is most high value males hold to a code of honor where respect for another mans property is imperative. Whereas women don’t seem to go by any code except fucking the top dog claimed or not if they can. Santiago think about this the next time she fucks your legs off while thinking about me.

I have to COMPLETELY OVERCOME all my handicaps to the point where I am BETTER than 80% of men at least.

I have to have my shit together better than the vast majority of men. I’m having a hard enough time just getting to be AVERAGE, but what I need to do in order to have any kind of sex life and get ANY of my sexual needs met AT ALL is be better than the vast majority of guys out there.

While this is wrong for the simple fact that 80% of women can’t mathematically have 20% of guys, it’s also bad thinking for another reason.

If you’re trying to become a better man for the sole purpose of getting women then you’re doing it wrong. You strive to become a better man so you can be a better man. One of the rewards to becoming a real man is that you then, surprise surprise, get women. Without really trying, and without having to focus on them.

Too much of the manosphere focuses on women – specifically how to get them. Focus on what’s important, being a man. The vast majority of men don’t do this work on themselves. Because it’s hard. Giving up before you even begin as the above quote implies means that maybe you’re not cut out for it yet.

And by the way, if the majority of men give up and don’t do this work, then you may discover that it’s not quite as hard as you think.

So, in short, easily understandable monosyllables that means Hypergamy informs women’s sexual filtering before monogamy or promiscuity happens. GIRL PICK HOT MAN SHE WANT FUCK. DOES NOT CARE WHO SHE GET FUCK OR KEEP, JUST WHO SHE WANT FUCK.

Women tend to want fuck hawt guys within LTRs (but especially tend to want a LTR) whereas men tend to want to fuck a variety of holes (but especially hawt ones) outside of LTRs. Then everyone settles (except hawt guys and hawt girls who tend to get what they want). And as such everyone has a tendency to game the sexual marketplace system wrt hawtness. And then there was an arms race SMS-gaming-wise, and then the arms race escalated = now = human beings be cool (as long as you don’t believe that is all that is going on wrt humankind).

Then you get old and die and no one gives a shit about you anymore (unless you meme’d your way into the top .00001% of the compellingness gradient wrt to the human addiction to the narrative). The end.

Oh dear, Liz wants to start a flame war again. But I’ll be the more mature one – again.

Anyway, Rollo.

I actually agree with you on this topic. Female ‘hypergamy’ does mean that women look for men right at the top of the scale, and in the past most women were very much willing – unlike men – to share their partners. This was partly because hypergamy in the past had much more to do with wealth, and the scarcity of resources meant that women were willing to allow their men to have multiple partners as long as they had a stable relationship.

B’yeah, if you remove all other learned habits, morals, etc. then yeah, you will see society resemble 80/20 sexually more and more. And I agree that 80% of men not having a partner would be terrible for society, and that is why it currently isn’t the case and hasn’t been for a long time.

It’s because we have learnt habits and morals that are perhaps against our nature that society isn’t like that. Ideas of monogamy and chastity are the reason that most people in society do have partners.

As it is, 80/20 is the law of attraction, but it is for both men and women (men also want the top 20%, they are just more likely to settle for less. But in our current society, women have to settle for less too.)

And society isn’t really changing more towards 80/20. Because even though no one cares about chastity, most women now won’t put up with their men cheating and many people are still serially monogamous. So even a dude who is 10 will only have one partner for years if he’s in an LTR.

I think Adam makes a good point. A lot of TRP guys seem obsessed with 80/20 because they think being part of the top 20% is the only way to get girls (I aint saying you are saying that Rollo.) But yeah, a) thats not true and b) you shouldn’t want to improve yourself just to get sex

I don’t want the top twenty percent of women. I just want one that’s young, not fat, and not carrying around some other guys kids.

Don’t care at all where she stands in some pathetic female hierarchy.

Still as Rollo keeps trying to tell everybody hypergamy is a feature and it’s there. Hypergamy is like gravity. It doesn’t matter how much you don’t like it it’s gonna happen. And it’s always been there. It’s not like feminism created hypergamy.

Frankly I really don’t care what women want anymore. I’ll just keep doing my own thing. Certainly not gonna have any more kids. Should probably go get a vasectomy. I’ve already spawned myself some half copies. Hopefully another really nice beta will marry the mom of the second one and pay for his shit. I’m certainly not going to do it.

Lol if only someone would have told me the way to win my divorce was to stop caring. Hey you guys getting divorced? Stop caring, minimize your child support payments, and go do something fun.

No babe you still think men are women. Men are not women. I don’t care if a girl is in the top or bottom. I care that she’s thin, young, and not carrying around any other man’s kids. Hell because thin girls are so rare in modern fatopia I’ll even still go out with the single moms. Right up until they start giving me shit about meeting little Johnny and Sally. Fuck that they have a dad and if you want those kids to have a dad go fix the relationship you fucked up.

And yeah you’re clearly in the top of women, right? Lol! That you in your pic? You think I haven’t used online dating? I’d see that face and hide immediately. Stealth fatty alert.

Emily, the first thing to bear in mind is that all these so-called “men’s sites” are driven by nothing more than the most transparent V-envy one could imagine. If that were not the case, why would the males central focus be on the perceived advantages that they believe women have?

I was reading your comments about the difficulties of some of your friends being extremely tall (I’m 6’10) and you really nailed it.
The way I see it, it’s a force multiplier, good or ill. It’s not my imagination, almost everyone is looking at me. I’m often the tallest person they’ve seen. But it also means that any beta comfort-slut vibes or other DLVs are broadcast everywhere. I know the long term solution is IDGAF, but any tips for short term?
What to do about “don’t lean in to hear her”?
The short set stuff you mentioned seems good. Anything else?

But yeah, I was merely asking you guys what you would prefer. Certainly you guys don’t seem too keen on lifelong monogamy.

Oh, certainly, certainly, and you being a young woman, know all about how to determine what men between the ages of 20 and 60 years want out of life because you’ve got so much experience understanding men. Indeed. Don’t stop and consider your perspective and the bias it might create in you, you might learn something about yourself, and we can’t have that.

Your question presumes a false dichotomy and also ignores any idea of marriage being a unique contract/partnership between two individuals. Just by asking it you are by default passing responsibility onto men and male preferences for the existence of marriage, allowing you to conveniently ignore any responsibility on women to compromise to achieve commitment from a man. After all, it’s amazingly convenient as a woman to simply say, “Well, I can’t get a male commitment because men don’t want ____.”

It’s literally the same argument that beta males make when they decide, “Well, I can’t get a woman because women won’t accept me for the undeveloped man that I am, all their fault.”

But that chart in the beginning of the post will be true if a) men are not monogamous, and b) women are completely promiscuous and don’t mind sharing a man.

Re-read the post for christ’s sake, and try not to *again* throw all responsibility on men for not being monogamous. This seems to be your favorite theme here, trying to build a psychological justification (an out) for when your boyfriend won’t give you commitment that prevents you from ever self-analyzing and recognizing that perhaps you simply didn’t provide anything complementary to a man’s life, ever.

Good luck on the same well-trodden feminist path, even though you think you’re being red-pill.

I don’t want the top twenty percent of women. I just want one that’s young, not fat, and not carrying around some other guys kids.

Fatties make up 70% of the female population. Rule out single moms as well and you’ve probably cut out another 10%. Rule out all you would consider “ugly” in the remainder and you cut 50% of the 20% remaining (assuming a normal distribution of “attractive” characteristics across all these groups).

You want the top 10% of women, not the top 20%. How’s that for the stark reality of an obesity crisis?

In my circle of girlfriends, I can think of nothing that elicits more giggles and more intense personal satisfaction then when a male sweats to serve us…it is just such an intense rush to know the absolute power We hold over the Masculine Slave Gender.
Males have been, are, and *will* always be our workhorses & Beasts of Burden…a niche that they were designed by Nature herself to serve in perpetuity.
If you think the first 6 K years were disagreeable for your gender, well you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

“A lapsus linguae might be the best route for your gender…The Superior Feminine Gender enjoys it when you do it properly to Us and it might reduce the chances for a rape allegation against males like you!

Huh. I was under the impression that the next article would be about the odious bottom 80%(global population) of women populating geek culture for shits and giggles and how to dread-fart her into trying on a matching Fur-Suit.

A brush up on the pareto principle aspect of hyper-gammy is appreciated all the same. This sort of thing emboldens me to shamelessly pursue game while I prepare my hooks.

I bet an article on geek culture would serve even if Feminism DOES finally get the social(but not pragmatic) boot. There will always be a barrel and crabs at the bottom of it. But It’s easier to out-nip the crabs at the bottom. Or I’m not the crab I think I am.

There will always be people trying to elude the nasty realities of game, no? If Feminism phases out then wont geek-culture as it is now phase out with it?

First, is it really good to pass on one’s genetic heritage? It’s an open question. How is that a benefit to a man to reproduce especially given the extent to which children tax a man’s life? Children prematurely age a man, they ruin good marriages (the happiest marriages are childless), children are unbelievably expensive, they limit your life, they limit your ability to take risks, they limit travel and adventure, they limit your ability to maintain friends, they limit the extent to which you can build your mind, and a committed marriage limits a man’s ability to pursue multiple sex partners. . . and we know wives further tax a man’s life often draining his wallet and his sanity – and even more so if there’s a divorce.

Secondly, I’m wondering about the extent to which these mating distributions are impacted by economic conditions. Do those mating distributions hold for every nation and every economic order? For every era in history? Are there data available allowing us to compare male fertility rates in more laissez faire nations like Singapore and the US with democratic socialist nations like Denmark and Norway?

And then I found this interesting study. Apparently, assuming this study is valid, male fertility rates are not much lower than female fertility rates and the rates remain consistent across economic or political systems. I find it hard to believe, but there it is.

‘Good’ is a qualitative issue. The fact remains that men evolved with a sexual imperative to mate and pass on his genetic legacy. Whether that’s good for a man is subjective.

Do those mating distributions hold for every nation and every economic order?

Monogamy and the formalization of it in marriage are cross-cultural and cross-religious, but the stresses that prompted monogamous pairing (even demi-polygamous marriage) remain constant. Hypergamy disincentivizes men’s participation in larger societal structures, especially so in a post-agrarian social order. Solution: social Regulation of sexual relations that prioritizes men’s imperatives by constraining women’s Hypergamous imperatives.

I should also add that the reverse of this social order – Hypergamy defining socio-sexual relations – manifests when the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) of Hypergamy is relatively insured for women. It also makes for a decline in marriage and an increase in never-married men and women.

Post agrarian, perhaps hypergamy disincentivizes men’s participation in larger societal structures, until hypergamy reincentivizes men’s participation in larger societal structures, within dually recursive feedback loops, double-helix-style, by way of the sexual marketplace arms race re-escalations (both hawtness-wise and mitigation-of-hawtness-wise), of which a recent manifestation was the marriage contract, but now swinging towards a post-modern feminine-primary unfettering of sexual expression fantasy-wise (sans responsibilities for any realities outside of fantasy), which if we manage to avoid the self-conflagration potentialities thus arising, should naturally re-manifest as masculine-primary, in the post-post-modern era, for which almost anything is possible (but I would venture will be coined as a “reality-fuck-mindorgasm-style”. Who know what that be? But should be cool. Hopefully I can live long enough to get me some mind-orgasms of the future (but for the present I really do luv muh dick orgasms).

2 things.
The first is that chart of a 3 girl inflated ego to the point she thinks she can get a 7 man. Women’s delusions via Solipism are impressive. In pop culture Megyn Traunor has a song that was Top 10 about her future beta husband, Taylor Swift’s Wildest Dream video is about her being the side piece to a married man, and there’s a song called Xs and 0s where the video has a fat girl bragging about these hot guys with abs she has in different cities. Pop culture has warped the female mind. Listen to those songs and watch the videos. Flat out open hypergamy!!!

Second thing is the 80/20 model is EXTREMELY dangerous. The Muslims coming into EU raped and pillaging is because they want sex and come from polygamous societies where they can’t get women since Muslim law allows for 4 wives. In my personal opinion, and I don’t know how you fellas feel about it, but it’s proof that a man who can’t get a girl is VERY dangerous especially since they get into packs of other sexless men who basically go nuts over their sexless lives!